Ocular biomechanics due to ground blast reinforcement

2021 ◽  
Vol 211 ◽  
pp. 106425
Author(s):  
Alireza Karimi ◽  
Reza Razaghi ◽  
Christopher A. Girkin ◽  
J. Crawford Downs
Keyword(s):  
Biomaterials ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 120735
Author(s):  
B.G. Gerberich ◽  
B.G. Hannon ◽  
A. Hejri ◽  
E.J. Winger ◽  
E. Schrader Echeverri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
C. Ross Ethier ◽  
Victor H. Barocas ◽  
J. Crawford Downs
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 396-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Z. Reinstein ◽  
Marine Gobbe ◽  
Timothy J. Archer
Keyword(s):  

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Ross Ethier ◽  
Mark Johnson ◽  
Jeff Ruberti
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Leccisotti ◽  
Stefania V. Fields ◽  
Johnny Moore ◽  
Sunil Shah ◽  
Tara C.B. Moore

Author(s):  
Ian A. Sigal ◽  
Hongli Yang ◽  
Michael D. Roberts ◽  
J. Crawford Downs

Biomechanical response is often influenced by the geometry (shape) of a system. Numerical techniques such as the finite element (FE) method offer the possibility of incorporating geometric details of a system into a mathematical model with a greater level of detail than is generally achievable with purely analytical models. In this vein, FE models of biological structures tend to fall into two broad categories: generic models and specimen-specific models. Generic models are attractive because the geometric features of interest may be cast as variable parameters that simplify analysis of factor influence, but may be limited in what can be predicted about a specific specimen. In contrast, specimen-specific models may contain a high level of geometric detail, but analysis of the influence of geometry can be more complicated.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 785-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Tian ◽  
Match W. L. Ko ◽  
Li-ke Wang ◽  
Jia-ying Zhang ◽  
Tian-jie Li ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document